I watched this movie for the first time last night. In order to determine the meaning of the ending, I decided it would be necessary to keep in mind the significance of the young man’s childhood search for God within different religious systems and his apparent desire to believe in all of them, excluding none.

In the end, the young man offers two versions of his experience and asks the listener which one he prefers, seeming (to me) to imply that it doesn’t really matter which version is true. I believe that implication is the essential message of the story; and if I’m correct, I find that message to be very disturbing. He seems to be saying that one will find God regardless of which path one takes, regardless of whether one believes in myths or in truth — that all paths lead to God.

For a Christian, this story’s message may be comparable to contradicting the words of Jesus Christ, i.e., John 14:6 “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Also Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

Donald4 years ago

Hello Kathy,

The Bible also says in Luke 18:22 (“You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”) It says to trust God and he will provide. Have you done this? If not you are a hypocrite as most Christians are. It is easy to claim salvation by going to church on Sunday and saying yea Christ. That is not the deal. The churches say that salvation is free and all you have to do is believe. If this were true all you would need of the Bible would be John 3:16. You can’t pick and choose those parts of the Bible that you like and call that Christianity. When you do that, what you have done is to create your own religion that takes advantage of the parts of the Bible that aren’t too hard to follow.

Freddie4 years ago

In the book, it’s very difficult to make the argument that the author’s implication is that the second story was true. Pi implores the insurance guys to place a banana in a bucket of water, proving that it floats. He also begs them to send the meerkat bones in the boat to a lab for testing. What I don’t understand is what the correlation between God and the story is. Perhaps that there are things that require faith to believe in as well as things that are easier to believe. Just because something is hard to believe, doesn’t make it false, and just because something is easy to believe (i.e. A ‘story you have already heard before’) does not make it true.

By the way, atheists may not believe in god, but they make many leaps of faith in doing so. In the atheist narrative, life arose through a completely random series of chemical reactions, this defying the law of entropy. That takes a lot more suspension of disbelief than the concept of a greater consciousness than our own. The neurons in our brains perform their tasks oblivious to our thoughts, for which they are essential. It does not take a giant stretch to believe that we have a similar relationship with a greater consciousness as well.

B. Gator4 years ago

Well this was some very interesting reading in the article and the comments. Theology aside for now I find it interesting that one huge depiction in the movie was left out in this story. When Pi disembarks from the island it is shown as a human figure which to me suggests something different. I wont even mention the odd happening when he finds a tooth in the flower from a tree on the island.

My take are that both story lines are true. The one story line that involves people is the much darker one full of the horrors one would have faced thrust into that type of a survival situation. The other story involving animals is the one he (Pi) tells himself and others is true so he can be happy with himself in his daily life. The one common subject in both story lines is his relationship with his god (Christian, Hindu or whichever) and how it goes from enjoying the beauties in nature that a creator provided to questioning what that creator wants of him (Pi).

Now lets get back to the island. My take is the island is an obvious symbolization. That symbol was the one thing that gave him life while he was adrift. In the human story the cook kills the Japanese sailor for food. The cook in turn kills Pi’s mother and Pi kills the cook. The island represents cannibalism and how if Pi did not eat to survive he would die. His rationalization about “god only knows” is Pi’s way of saying the god would have been ok with his actions knowing he only did it to survive.

Maia4 years ago

Interesting that people are debating which story is “real” the first or the second. I’d like to point out that the whole story is a fiction. The whole thing is a metaphor. You have to stand outside of the story and view it objectively to get the point of the author, not get caught up in which is real or not. If you are enclosed in the circle of “pi” you are more likely to like the second story, if you are accepting the irrational transcendental nature of “pi”, or the infinite reality of 3.14… you are more accepting the first story with the tiger. You can also accept both as “true.” The author is explaining why he believes in all the major religions at once (Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam), and how for him, they all offer a different perspective on the same “story.” The tiger represents Pi, Pi’s human father, God as well as our “animalistic” human nature at the same time. The father says to Pi that he is projecting his own belief of what the tiger is onto the tiger and not accepting the harsh reality of what the tiger actually is. This is the same thing that we psychologically do with ourselves, other people and God. Just as the father is a reflection of our heavenly father and the son is a reflection of the father. Pi’s father sacrifices the goat in order save his son from getting “eaten up” by the harsh realities of life. The Father’s role is to prepare his son for the harsh realities of life. The Mother’s role is to allow her child the freedom to “find his own way and follow the heart.” The Father represents the author’s view of Rational thought and also possibly the author’s view of Old Testament Christianity’s representation of a “harsh God.” His mother represents Hinduism, and the feminine perspective of religion (although actually both religions actually have aspects of both). She ends up “conceding” with the Father that he is right about teaching his son about rational thinking. His brother laughs at him. In the story of survival on the boat (or spiritual journey) all three perish, the one who mocks, the one who thinks rationally, and the one who desires to follow the heart yet concedes to rational thinking. Yet in the depths of the ocean (his soul), a light shines from both his parents. The only one to survive of his family is Pi, the one who can incorporate both the heart and the mind; the rational and the irrational. The goat represents the “scapegoat” of the Old Testament, or our human need to project the evils of society onto something outside ourselves to protect our consciousness from the harsh reality of our tendency toward sin. In the New Testament, God replaces the “scapegoat” with his own son, Jesus showing the even harsher reality of the evil of human nature and how we are willing to kill an innocent man because of our own sins. In the same way, the literary technique of metaphor in religious writings is a “scapegoat” to protect our consciousness from the harsh realities of truth. In the first story all three, the Father, the brother and the mother go down with the boat of their own Dogma unable to extend their thinking beyond the circle of the immediate reality to the infinite reality of Pi. Enough people on this site have explained the relationship between the animals and the human beings and their behaviors. What I would like to point out is that once the correlation is made between the first story and the second story, the reader realizes that the cook is the hyena, the orangutan is his mother and the zebra as the injured Japanese sailor (both white and black, rice and gravy… the one who accepts both but does not incorporate both), and Pi becomes the correlation with the tiger. That leaves one character from the first story, Pi himself without another character to correlate to, which invites one to put a question mark there, then who is Pi representing in the first story, is he God? Is Hi Pi? Is Pi an alter ego? Pi, wanting to kill the tiger at first, decides to be merciful with the tiger, and attempts to “tame” the beast within instead. And so there is this ongoing struggle on the journey of the spirit, with God, self, and the beast within. He has to keep it at a distance, feed it and keep it alive rather than let it overtake him and eat him. Rather than having us simply piss at God and mark our territory and mock others, or associate ourselves with the darkness of our animalistic nature which degrades us to depravity and even cannibalism, the author draws us in inviting us to want to tame our “beast within” and become the goodness of God. The preference of God is that we become like Him. God prefers that story to the others. In other words, God prefers that we believe the “story” if it gets us to “tame” our inner beast in order to become like God. That is what the author views religion as, the stories that tame the beast within, providing a “consciousness scapegoat” in order to view the world from an objective viewpoint outside of our immediate reality. Religions all have elements of rational truth even though they may be strange (bananas do float on salt water, check and see for yourself) that allow the rational mind to slip into accepting other aspects of “reality” that sometimes seem irrational. Religion suspends rational thought momentarily, to allow consciousness to take in the metaphors as “truths of the soul.” In the same way, the journey of the spiritual life itself is a metaphor, which suspends us on a floating raft in the middle of the Pacific, while God also provides a “simulated,” “real world” which is the sand against our cheek, or the jungle which God disappears into without looking back. Each is as “real” as the other.

B. Gator4 years ago

This story was fiction? No way!

Maia4 years ago

I just wanted to add that when the brother says, “don’t tempt the storm”, the author is pointing out that the brother is the type of person that just pisses away his life and mocks others and religion. He is the person that doesn’t even attempt to engage in the spiritual life at all and also goes down with the boat with the parents. Pi on the other hand wants to see the power of the storm (the spiritual life and the power of God) and is exhilarated by it.

NKL4 years ago

I can’t help but to compare this movie to Pan’s Labyrinth. Ofelia, much like Pi, is subjected to a harsh situation and during her struggle gets to live through fantasy. At the end you have to wonder was it all real, or was she simply being a young girl and displacing her difficult life with a better reality. There are very few clues to prove/disprove either. My girlfriend (at the time) sided with the more mundane side of the story. For those of you who have seen this, explain how towards the end of the movie Ofelia removed herself from the room she was locked in and guarded if the magic chalk WASN’T real…

As for Pi, I will agree with most others here that it was a great movie. :)

Tom4 years ago

I wonder how many times he beat off while at sea?

shane4 years ago

at least 300 times, easy….

Tom4 years ago

I wonder how many times he masturbated while at sea?

Tom4 years ago

I wonder how many times he “choked the dragon” while at sea?

Tom4 years ago

Hu

Marcus4 years ago

One thing I can’t help but compare is the fact that Pi refers to Richard as the reason he kept fighting to live, along with the Tiger being a symbol of his father’s lessons which he also states saved him. Could it mean that once he finally got to shore all the survival knowledge left him, as if it wasn’t necessary anymore?

Trevor4 years ago

Besides the two endings, I actually found myself pondering more on what the tiger represented and why Pi was so sad when it left. He even said himself that he was more saddened by the tiger’s lack of a ‘good bye’ than by the loss of his own family.

Since the tiger represented Pi, and Pi took care of the tiger, I thought that represented a relationship with God in a way. And I thought that maybe the tiger (once it was leaving) could represent the indifference that God can have towards us; he gives, takes, creates, and destroys. In the end God isn’t ‘nice’ or ‘mean’ .. Like Pi wanted a ‘good bye’ or ‘good job’ from God, some kind of closure or revelation, but in the end those are things we must provide ourselves; God isn’t our best buddy or sidekick like some stories would have you believe. This realization hurts Pi at first but eventually it makes him more realistic and stronger like his Father advised. Not to say that it makes him disbelieve in God, I think this movie is trying to teach us that we can have Faith and still be realistic at the same time.

Donald4 years ago

I think the Tiger represents Pi’s survival instinct. In a survival situation, there are no rules. You do what you have to do to survive. Being in the lifeboat was a dire and unpleasant but it also gave Pi a feeling of power and purpose that is rarely permissible in normal civilized society. When Pi returned to normal society he realized that this part of his personality would be lost. He would no longer be able to make his own rules.

Lori Ann4 years ago

I think Trevor’s comment is very insightful, and quite possibly very true. I had not thought of this comparison between God and the tiger. I was also disturbed by the tiger’s indifference, but as stated, that’s just the nature of the beast…literally. Not sure if it is God’s nature, but interesting view. How pathetic that certain individuals feel empowered by stating the obvious just for what…shock value? Not very effective. This is, obviously, in regards to the inquiries above Trevor’s remarks. Guess we all know, “Boys will be boys”

Jacinta Turra4 years ago

I think the tiger represents God and thats why I couldn’t understand Pi’s relationship with the tiger in the film. I don’t think we’re meant to understand their relationship, just as we sometimes don’t understand our relationship with God. Especially when he doesn’t seem to be there when we need him most.

That’s how the goat was dragged through the bars, and impossible things seem possible with God in our life’s. he also works in mysterious ways, so we can’t understand why he lets certain things happen. Also Pi’s dad teaches him to fear the tiger in the goat scene, just as religious people are taught to fear and respect God, by not tempting his wrath with wrong doing.

There are many other references throughout the movie that may support the tiger representing God theory. Pi wants to communicate with the tiger so they can live together in peace. Just as believers communicate through prayer with their God. Pi then eventually communicates with God himself after this scene.

Pi sees the universe in the tigers eyes, all he has ever known in his life with wonder and awe. Its as if the tiger sees into his soul, like God sees into ours. He sees amazing things when the tiger is around, the beauty and majesty of Gods creation while on the boat. but only when things are quiet and the tiger and pi are at peace with each other. just as we experience amazing things when at peace with God, through meditation.

The tiger is always there, but not always visible. Pi says that God is always watching, the tiger is also always watching (when it finally acted to eat the hyena, when pi asks him what he’s staring at on the boat, when it watches the jungle before walking away at the end etc.)

The final scene is of the jungle where the tiger walked away, the unknown area where God dwells, but still thinks of Pi and is still watching. Pi’s laughing face comes up beside the tiger walking into the jungle. I think that this signifies that Richard Parker was thinking of Pi with love, even though Pi thought he had turned his back on him.

Pi was being looked after again by returning to civilisation, and not going through the traumatic experience on the boat, so God was no longer needed as much in his life. Though still around him and living on in him. Pi felt that God had deserted him and cried, just as some of the hardest times in life are when we feel alone and deserted by God. But it was just that he didn’t need Him anymore.

God is also feared and loved by his believers, just as the tiger is feared and loved by Pi. And it is the tiger that he says saves his life. The tiger also seems to appear in the film, when Pi gives up hope or has questions.

In the realistic story Pi tells the Japanese officials from his hospital bed, the tiger becomes Pi. I think this signifies a belief that men of little faith are their own God’s in a way. They don’t believe in something greater than themselves, so go their own way with self belief and determination.

Finally I’ve been pondering the significance of the odd name of Richard Parker for the tiger. Pi tells the story of the hunter at the start whom the tiger gets his name from. But a more meaningful interpretation is that, we should be open minded and accept all religions, regardless of what they call their God. God goes by many names, but is still God no matter how strange his name may seem to some.

Gale4 years ago

I’ve read all the comments, and all of them, with the exception of the puerile ones regarding specific sexual acts, were interesting. What caught my attention the most though, was how often we tend to interpret things so that they fit neatly into our perceptions and beliefs. I enjoy reading other interpretations, and I try to keep my mind open to different ways of looking at things, because, I think, it broadens my sense of the world and the others in it.

JLakis4 years ago

I hadn’t considered the tiger as God, either, but viewed it in the psychoanalytic interpretation as Pi’s “shadow self.” What I find lovely is that a deeply spiritual person can see this film as a poignant tale of God’s love, while someone who’s read too much Jung and Joseph Campbell (that’s me) sees their philosophical inclinations illustrated. The individual’s response to this film tells us more about the viewer than the viewed. This may be the most marvelous aspect of this film, and, as the film suggests, the best way to interpret mythological stories.

Ann4 years ago

Hi Trevor,

I thought Pi’s sadness at the tiger’s lack of goodbye might represent his own sadness at not having had the chance to say good bye to his own family. The tiger represents Pi and the tiger didn’t say “goodbye” to Pi, just like Pi wasn’t able to say goodbye to his own family (in the animal version of the story).

Sy4 years ago

Josh Allen4 years ago

Bill4 years ago

Thank You…. The only thng you left out would which would have made it all more tramatic is the possiblity that he he really got truamatised having to eat human flesh to survive and maybe even his own mothers.

Ally4 years ago

Just after finshing this movie and I have to say it was incredible. But I just CAN’T accept that the human version is correct. Yes I understand the concept of metaphors and symbolism, but I myself have to believe in Richard. As unlikely as it seems, it makes more sense to me, a person who will never 100% not believe in the fairies and such. Does that make me crazy? :)

Zaim4 years ago

i know this’ll be kinda “weird” to hear…but..
I believe The Human Story, but at the same time, i prefer The Animal Story.
this movie is too amazing for me to “fully-understand” it…this is totally a masterpiece.

brian4 years ago

truth is nobody here understands the point of the movie, thats why we all came to this site

frank trapani4 years ago

Perhaps I’m too pragmatic, but some of the scenes were fantastic! The flying fish, the photo plankton the scenes with a real tiger. How about all the stormy seas. Unreal! How was it done? Digitally?

Link524 years ago

First i want to say the movie was very moving. But I believe That PI was the Tiger, and the tears that ran off his face about moving forward never saying “good buy” were affections he never was able to share to his family…..he was powerless to a misfortunate situation and relied on basic survival instincts.

there are two sides of the story, but if you look at the fact there is a writer and narrator; you can instantly put together that it’s reality. and when you see the narrator’s side he more importantly wants to highlight courage over obstacles, and just moving on as if nothing meant more to him.

If he loved being at sea and exploring in his past he would have chosen to be a traveler…but he didn’t, you later see he settled for a wife and kids. he not only wanted a normal life after his tragic experience but also express his feelings.

that’s my two cents.

San cadena4 years ago

I understand both stories and I prefer the animal story but what really gets me us that pi doesn’t get to say bye to the tiger or see him ever again, I think there should be more to the story of there parting ways

Ben4 years ago

Pi NEVER would have survived in the First story. The Second story was true.

Fred4 years ago

In the ending he reads the Story that the Japanese men put in the article and they put the Tiger Story… This implied that they too believed in GOD rather than the made up story that made real sense. The story was to make you really think about GOD, but not like if you were able to see him but like you could feel his Presence at times in your life.

Fred Vinson4 years ago

In the ending he reads the Story that the Japanese men put in the article and they put the Tiger Story… This implied that they too believed in GOD rather than the made up story that made real sense. The story was to make you really think about GOD, but not like if you were able to see him but like you could feel his Presence amongst you.

Fred Vinson4 years ago

In the ending he reads the Story that the Japanese men put in the article and they put the Tiger Story… This implied that they too believed in GOD rather than the made up story that made real sense. The story was to make you really think about GOD, but not like if you were able to see him but like you could feel his Presence.

Fred Vinson4 years ago

In the ending he reads the Story that the Japanese men put in the article and they put the Tiger Story… This implied that they too believed in GOD rather than the made up story that made real sense.

Ricky4 years ago

In the first time I thought the stories its all about the child, in the middle, hmmm just like watching avatar – my eyes so bright – and then at the end, Whatttt. All the story that I believe about his journey was not true. Whattt???

But, finally.. I realize, after the novelist said relationship between human-animal. I’m shocked. Great Movie.

Emma4 years ago

I just finished watching the movie and I loved it! Among the other comments I see people trying to take a logical stand point of the movie. I have read the book and seen the movie and I don’t believe that we are meant to take a logical stand point on the movie or pick a story. The story is really of human brutality. As I was watching the movie with my father I got a little upset when the hyena attacked the other animals (I’m a huge animal lover and it’s hard to watch) my father tried to calm me down by saying “It’s okay they’re just animals.”

jporray4 years ago

God is a God of miracles, if we give our lives into His hands, and have faith and believe!

‘Life of Pi’ Ending Explained

Ang Lee’s Life of Pi is racking-up critical acclaim (read our review) and pre-award season buzz along with solid box office numbers. Though, for every mention of the film’s beautiful 3D or amazing CGI tiger, there’s a fuddled viewer confused by the movie’s controversial ending.

Readers of Yann Martel’s original novel (the ones who made it to the end) have already faced the challenging last-minute question presented by the story’s narrator, but filmgoers expecting a fanciful adventure at sea have been understandably caught off-guard by the finale. No doubt, viewers will debate the ending with friends and family – but to help steer discussion we’ve put together a brief analysis of the Life of Pi ending, explaining why the final question may not be as cut and dry as some moviegoers seem to think.

It goes without saying that the remainder of this article will contain MAJOR SPOILERS for Life of Pi – the movie and the book (especially the ending). If you do not want to be spoiled about either, turn away now.

For anyone who hasn’t seen (or read) Life of Pi and isn’t concerned about having the ending spoiled, Pi’s adventure concludes in a Mexican hospital bed – where he is interviewed by a pair of Japanese Ministry of Transport officials. The agents tell Pi that his story – which includes multiple animal companions and a carnivorous island – is too unbelievable for them to report, so Pi tells them a different version of the story: one that paints a much darker and emotionally disturbing variation of events. After both stories have been shared, Pi leaves it up to the viewer (or reader) to decide which version they “prefer.”

Personal “preference” has larger thematic meaning, when viewed in the context of the overarching story; however, before we analyze the ending (via the question) in greater detail, we’re going to briefly lay out the two versions of Pi’s story.

In both accounts, Pi’s father contracts a Japanese ship to transport his family, along with a number of their zoo animals, from India to Canada in an effort to escape political upheaval in their native country. The stories are identical up until Pi climbs aboard the lifeboat (following the sinking of the cargo ship) only re-converging when he is rescued on the Mexican shore. The 227 days that Pi spends lost at sea are up for debate.

The Animal Story

In this version of Pi’s tale, the cargo ship sinks and, during the ensuing chaos, he is joined on the lifeboat by a ragtag group of zoo animals that also managed to escape: an orangutan, a spotted hyena, a zebra with a broken leg, and a Bengal Tiger (named Richard Parker). After some time, Pi watches helplessly as the hyena kills the zebra and then the orangutan before it is, subsequently, dispatched by Richard Parker. Pi then sets about conditioning the tiger through rewarding behavior (food and fresh water), so that the two can co-exist in the boat. Though Pi succeeds, the pair remain on the verge of starvation – until, after several months at sea, they wash ashore an uncharted island packed with fresh vegetation and a bountiful meerkat population. Pi and Richard Parker stuff themselves, but soon discover that the island is home to a carnivorous algae that, when the tide arrives, turns the ground to an acidic trap. Pi realizes that eventually the island will consume them – so he stocks the lifeboat with greens and meerkats and the pair sets sail again. When the lifeboat makes landfall along the Mexican coast, Pi and Richard Parker are once again malnourished – as Pi collapses on the beach, he watches the Bengal Tiger disappear into the jungle without even glancing back.

Pi is brought to a hospital – where he tells the animal story to the Japanese officials. However, when the agents do not believe his tale, the young survivor tells a different version of his journey.

The Human Story

In this version of Pi’s tale the cargo ship still sinks, but instead of the ragtag group of animals in the lifeboat, Pi claims that he was joined by his mother (Gita), the ship’s despicable cook, and an injured Japanese sailor. After some time, fearing for the limited supplies in the boat, the cook kills the weakened Japanese sailor, and later, Gita. Scarred from watching his mother die in front of his eyes, Pi kills the cook in a moment of self-preservation (and revenge).

Pi does not mention his other adventures at sea (the carnivorous island, etc) but it’d be easy to strip away some of the fantastical elements in favor of more grounded (albeit allegorical) situations. Maybe he found an island but realized that living is more than just eating and existing – deciding to take his chances at sea instead of wasting away in apathy on a beach eating meerkats all alone. Of course, that is purely speculation – since, again, Pi does not elaborate on the more grounded human story beyond the revelation that he was alone on the lifeboat.

The Ending Explained

Even if the connection between the lifeboat parties was missed, the writer makes the connection for the audience (or readers): the hyena is the cook, the orangutan is Pi’s mother, the zebra is the sailor, and Richard Parker is Pi. However, the film’s juxtaposition of the animal story and the human story has led many moviegoers to view the last-minute plot point as a finite “twist” – which was not the original intention of Martel (with the book) or very likely Lee (with the film). Viewers have pointed to the look of anguish on Pi’s face during his telling of the human story in the film as “proof” that he was uncomfortable facing the true horror of his experience. However, the novel takes the scene in the opposite direction, with Pi expressing annoyance at the two men – criticizing them for wanting “a story they already know.” Either way, much like the ending of Inception (read our explanation of that ending), there is no “correct” answer – and Life of Pi intentionally leaves the question unanswered so that viewers (and readers) can make up their own mind.

Facing the final question, it can be easy to forget that, from the outset, The Writer character was promised a story that would make him believe in God. In the first part of the narrative, we see Pi struggling to reconcile the differences between faith interpretations (Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam) – acknowledging that each of them contained valuable elements, even if they tell different stories (elements that together help him survive his ordeal at sea regardless of whether or not he was there with a tiger).

As a result, the larger question is impossible to answer definitively and, as mentioned, the “truth” of Pi’s story is of little concern to Martel or Lee. The real question is – which story do you, the viewer/reader prefer? Interpretation is subjective but the question is intended to serve as a moment of theological reflection. Are you a person that prefers to believe in things that always make sense/things that you can see? Or are you a person that prefers to believe in miracles/take things on faith? There are no right or wrong answers – just an opportunity for introspection.

Pi is faced with a heavy challenge: telling a story that will make a person believe in God. Some listeners might remain unconvinced but in the case of The Writer, who openly admits that he prefers the story with the tiger, and the Japanese officials, who in their closing report remarked on the feat of “surviving 227 days at sea… especially with a tiger,” Pi successfully helps skeptics overcome one of the largest hurdles to faith – believing in the unbelievable.

Since Pi marries The Writer’s preference for the Tiger story with the line, “and so it goes with God,” it’s hard to separate the question entirely from theology. Evidenced by his multi-religion background, Pi does not believe that any of the world’s religions are a one-stop shop for the truth of God – and his goal is not to convert anyone to a specific dogma. Instead, his story is set up to help viewers/readers consider which version of the world they prefer – the one where we make our own way and suffer through the darkness via self-determination, or the one where we are aided by something greater than ourselves (regardless of which version of “God” we may accept).

That said, aside from all the theological implications, and regardless of personal preference, it’s insular to view the ending as simply a dismissal of everything that Pi had previously described (and/or experienced) – since, in keeping with his view that every religious story has worthwhile parts, a third interpretation of the ending could be that the “truth” is a mix of both stories. Like Pi and his three-tiered faith routine, the viewer/reader can always pick and choose the parts that benefit their preferred version of the tale.

The “truth”: Pi survived for 227 days at sea, married the girl of his dreams, had children, and lived to tell two stories.

Like any quality piece of entertainment, a lot of this is subjective and there are multiple ways of interpreting the Life of Pi ending, so feel free to (respectfully) share your interpretation with fellow moviegoers in the comment section below.